Bob O
Lv 6
Bob O asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 1 decade ago

Why are the 288 Supreme Court rulings concerning the 14'th Amendment and Corporations?

including Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad 1886 which granted person-hood to Corporations and the subsequent rulings that cross from the 14'th amendment to the 1'st Amendment such as Buckley v. Valeo 1976 and this years Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission not a consideration in a Supreme Court nomination

Would you like to see a challenge to these rulings? Do you believe that the conservatives constant battle about Roe v. Wade when considering a Court nominee is just a smoke screen to keep us distracted from these issues?

4 Answers

  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    I'm not sure about conservatives picking the battle over Roe v. Wade as a smokescreen, although I always resent their insistence on breeching the Separation of Church and State rule of our Constitution with their fundamentalist anti-choice fanaticism. President Obama said in his State of the Union Address that he thinks the Supreme Court made a HUGE mistake when they voted 5-4 to grant "personhood" to corporations because, for one thing, this throws open our elections to foreign-owned companies on American soil. I would like to see a Supreme Court pick that is STRONG enough to sway one of the five Justices who voted "aye" to reverse the ruling. He chose well with Sonia Sotomayor, I thought, because Republicans would have had a tough time explaining a vote against her when they had already confirmed her for a Federal bench TWICE, once when she was nominated by George HW I rather hope he does not choose a Democratic governor simply because I'd like to keep as many Democratic governors in states as much as possible to prevent tampering with the votes this upcoming election, and I think Janet Napolitano is good right where she is, coordinating border security and curbing drug trafficking while also monitoring the possible domestic terrorists, the right-wing cult-evangelical militia groups. If Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who is suffering from a virulent cancer, retires he'll get to pick one more Supreme Court nominee, so I'm really really hoping that all of his supporters get FIRED UP in this upcoming mid-term election and VOTE for the Democrats to KEEP the majorities in both House and Senate (I'd even like the Senate to be in the Super Majority again---let's see if they can actually USE it this time instead of wimping out).

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • ck4829
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    Yes. The Christian Right is just a bone to chew on.

    It's the same thing with DADT. Conservatives scream about how "The bible says gays are bad!" when talking about Don't Ask Don't Tell. But the real reason Republicans defend it is because when a gay solider is discharged for being gay, a contractor will usually hire him/her back on. DADT is just a recruiting tool for military contractors.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anita
    Lv 4
    4 years ago

    How else are you going to hold them responsible under the law? As far as political contributions go, unions have been purchasing politicians for decades. If you bar corporations, make it fair and bar unions. All or nothing.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    You presume. I'm not particularly up in arms over this issue, but I don't think that means no one is interested in it.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.